Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes; 09-12-16Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-12-16 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 12, 2016 Chairman Kreimer called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fields, Dodson, Dunn, Williams, Larson, Griffin, Kreimer, and Lundquist COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Haggard STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Wensman & City Planner Becker Approve Agenda: Amendements suggested are to add discussion of the Tartan Park Comprehensive Plan Amendment and to request an opinion from the City Attorney regarding majority vs super majority. M/S/P: Dunn/Fields, move to approve the Agenda as amended, Vote: 7-0, motion carried Unanimously. Approve Minutes: August 22, 2016 M/S/P: Williams/Fields, move to approve the August 22, 2016 minutes as amended, Vote: 6-0, motion carried with Dunn not voting as she was not in attendance. Public Hearing – Variance Suzanne Horning Becker started her presentation regarding the variance request from Suzanne Horning for Lot 9 of Krause’s addition. This property is located at the intersection of Jamaca Ave N and Jane Road N. This application is for a variance from the 12 month time limit for the commencement of work associated with a lot size variance. A variance was granted on April 2014 for a variance from minimum lot size requirements. At that time, the applicant had requested that it be in perpetuity, but it was approved for a pe riod of five years. This lot is located in the RS zone, is located in the shoreland district, but is not a riparian lot. The applicant has owned the property since the mid 1980’s and would like to convey the lot within the family as a buildable lot. The variance expires in April of 2019 and the owner will need to make a decision to build on or sell it now. 2 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-12-16 The applicant provided a survey showing existing conditions and that the site can support a home and septic system. The surrounding properties a re of similar size, some being even smaller. The applicants have noted that without the variance, the property cannot be put to a reasonable use. The property has been taxed over time as a buildable lot and the applicant does not want to sell, but would like to convey the land to her children. Staff consulted with the City Attorney and found that it is possible to grant this as variances by nature run with the land. The applicant is requesting this so that they do not have to go through this process again. They have now been granted two variances, one in 1985 and one in 2014. Staff went through the findings and how they relate to the four variance criteria of Practical difficulties, Unique circumstances, Character of locality and Adjacent properties and traffic. There was one call received with the caller concerned that allowing this lot to be built upon will set a precedent. Staff is recommending approval of this variance application with a number of conditions, most of which were conditions of the previous variance. A condition was added that states that the variance will be valid until any one of the conditions occurs: The properties planned use changes in the Comp Plan, the property is rezoned, zoning regulations in RS change that would make the lot more non-conforming, included but not limited to an increase in minimum lot size requirements; or an increase in minimum lot width requirements. Dodson is wondering why this is an issue when this was originally platted as a buildable lot. Becker stated that it is because it does not have a home on it and would not be considered a legal non-conforming lot. Bridget Eubank, 9960 57th Street, and Brent Weyer, Suzanne Hornings children, spoke on behalf of Suzanne who was unable to attend. They would like to maintain the flexibility to ensure that this lot is buildable in the future. Public Hearing opened at 7:29 pm There were no other written or electronic comments received Public hearing closed at 7:30 pm. Dunn supports the motion as this is a developed area and this lot is consistent with the other lots. Williams would like to propose an additional condition that all other City, Zoning and development regulations must be satisfied before a building permit is issued. M/S/P: Williams/Larson, move to recommend approval of the request for a variance from the minimum lot size requirements in the RS – Rural Single Family Residential zoning district and from the maximum time of one year for which a variance is valid, 3 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-12-16 subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by staff and the additional condition recommended by the Planning Commission, Vote: 7-0, motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Solid Wall Fences Becker started her presentation by explaining the current fence code regulations as it relates to solid wall fencing on lots under ½ acre and what the exceptions are. Becker went through some of the history on the fence code. Anticipated higher density residential development was cited as the reason for the recommendation for allowing privacy fencing. After discussion over the course of five meetings, the current ordinance amendment was adopted. Section 154.081 requires that fences in side and rear yards need to be at least 30% open to air and light. Even if the prohibition of solid wall fences over four feet on lots under ½ acre is removed, fences would still need to adhere to this requirement unless this requirement is removed. Staff researched other Cities that allow solid wall fences over 4’ and there were quite a few. Staff presented two different options to the Planning Commission for discussion. Option #1 eliminates the prohibition of solid wall fences on lots under ½ acre altogether and also eliminates requirement of permitted encroachments on required yards. Option #2 eliminates the requirement for adjacent property owner to give permission. It also exempts fences that do not exceed one- fourth of the linear distance of the permimeter of a lot from the 30% openness requirement. It also eliminates the exception which allows fences that are erected under other circumstances when a solid wall fence is warranted due to safety, etc. which could be considered subjective and discriminatory. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt option #2. Fields asked if this allows privacy from one neighbor, but not three. Williams is wondering why we would not want to allow it on 3 sides of the lot, but not in the front yard. Becker stated that there is already a provision on front and side on corner lots. Option #2 is much more restrictive and there is only exceptions for when solid wall fences can be erected. Public Hearing opened at 7:51 pm Denise Thompson, 9077 Jane Road N, tried to get a fence permit for their dog and they were not able to get the neighbor signature. They feel that they are not able to have enough privacy. She also did some research and she was not able to find another City in Minnesota that does not allow the 6 foot high privacy fence. There were no other written or electronic comments received Public Hearing closed at 7:57 pm 4 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-12-16 Dodson prefers option #1 because it is easier to understand and option #2 is too much in the design area of the fence. Williams agrees, but is struggling with why we would restrict it to ¼ of the permimeter. They should be allowed anywhere be hind the front of the house on any lot. Kreimer would prefer to take the smaller step and go for option #2. Larson likes the simplicity of option #1. He doesn’t think the difference between 4’ and 6’ makes that much difference. He is wondering if it should be done different for urban vs. rural. This is Shoreland which might be different also. Fields prefers the step of option #2 because the City has not been inundated with requests, but this is based on one circumstance. Williams is thinking that the CIC have their own restrictions on fences. Dodson doesn’t see a need to restrict fences in other areas as other Cities do not do it. Kreimer feels that there was a lot of discussion a few years ago and is not in favor of changing it much because of one circumstance. M/S/F:Williams /Dodson, move to recommend approval of option #1, Vote: 3-4, motion Failed. Larson is wondering if the Planning Commission picks option #1 if the City Council won’t accept it. Becker stated that staff has recommended option #2 because they felt that out of respect for previous work done on the code, it might be better received. M/S/P: Fields/Dunn, move to recommend approval of Ord. 08- (Option #2), which amends Sec. 154.205: Fencing Regulations; Subd. (E) (3), by repealing language of Subp. D that requires permission from and adjacent property owner to erect a solid wall fence up to six feet in height for screening or privacy purposes when the lineal measurement of the fence does not exceed one-fourth of the linear distiance of the permimeter of the lot on a lot under half an acre; and which repeals subp. e., Vote: 5-2, motion carried. Dodson voted no because he feels option #2 is just a little too complicated. Business Item – Conditional Use Permit – 9200 Hudson Blvd Becker started the discussion by stating that this item will be a public hearing at the next meeting. This is just for an introduction to give the Commission the opportunity to ask questions prior to that. Scott Wycoff, Wasatch Storage Partners, they have submitted an application for a conditional use permit for a storage facility and exterior storage. Mr. Wycoff went through a rendering of the site and what they intend to do on the site. Wensman stated that this is right next to Boulder Ponds. This requires a conditional use because it is a storage facility. Williams is concerned about the impervious surface coverage. Planner Becker stated that it meets the impervious requirement of 75%. 5 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-12-16 Williams stated that the design of the buildings are pretty minimal. He would like to see something to break up the surfaces that face the streets. Dodson would like to see what the screening is between this and Boulder Ponds. Wycoff stated that there is a pretty heavy screen along that side of the facility. Dunn asked how many units are being proposed. Wycoff stated there would be somewhere around 700 units. Dunn also asked about security. Wycoff stated that there is gated control, there are close circuit TV’s and there are burglar alarms and it is well lit. They use “dark sky” light fixures and motion sensor lighting. Fields stated that this is a dramatic improvement for what is currently there. But he feels that this is at the bottom of the scale though for what could go there for providing tax base and employment. Wycoff stated that the property has been for sale for awhile and there has not been any interest until now. Business Item – Discussion of the Comprehensive Plan for Tartan Park Property M/S/: Williams/Dunn, a motion to request three things in regards to the Tartan Park property. 1) The Council to direct the Planning Commission to look at the Comprehensive Plan for the appropriate density of housing 2) proof that the property cannot be developed under OP or RE standards due to regulatory requirements 3) City staff should require such proof from the applicant before any request for changing the Comphrehensive Plan is deemed complete. Dodson stated that the OP ordinance states that it cannot be sewered. He feels this property could be an exception to the provision because of proximity. Larson asked if we have considered this being an urban vs. rural zoning classification. Williams stated that the zoning classification would be a next step after figuring o ut the Comprehensive Plan. Wensman stated that the property owner has made application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning of the property. If this is a City driven discussion, this would be quite costly. If it is applicant driven, they would pay for it. Dunn thinks there could be a hybrid of something that could be very nice. It is so unique and challenging and we need to make sure that it is done right. Williams is wondering if the motion passes as written, the burden of the OP question would fall to the applicant. Why would there be a lot of staff time? Wensman stated that coming up with proof is one thing, but coming up with the proper Comprehensive Plan amendment, drafting it and getting it through the process and potentially comin g up with a zoning district that is not one of our current ones, would be a considerable amount of staff time. Williams is wondering if the applicant is the driving force, would we be restricted to just looking at their proposal for the area. He would like the City to look at all possibilities and not just one possibility. Wensman stated that you can look at all possibilities and accept or reject what they are proposing. Wensman also stated that the City Council has already discussed this topic. By rules of the Council, in order to discuss a topic that has already been discussed by the Council, two members of the Council would need to ask to put it on the agenda. Williams stated that based on the discussion, it is very likely that there would be two Council members willing to put it 6 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-12-16 back on the agenda. Wensman stated that it was actually a 4-1 vote in the end, so there might not be two willing to put on agenda. Williams asked if the City could require the proof that the property cannot be developed under OP ordinance before the application can be deemed complete or is that something that would be asked during the discussion. Wensman stated that it would be the later. It should be brought up during the discussion at the time comments are being made on the application. When giving feedback, clear direction can be given that you want that information. Williams feels that we probably can’t require this because th e application is already in hand. He feels he should withdraw the motion. Business Item – Things for the City Attorney to address Williams would like the City attorney to address the history and status of majority vs. super majority votes at the City Council level. What circumstances require majority and which ones require super majority? In addition, PUD deviations were changed to say that they could be approved by a simple majority vote, when previously it was super majority. He would like the City attorney to address if that applies to all provisions of the PUD ordinance, or only some of them. He would like this information to be presented to the Planning Commission in a brief form. Wensman stated that currently the Comprehensive Plan requires super majority. The super majority vote requirement was in the OP ordinance, but was not required to be. A PUD is a negotiated ordinance and is not required to be super majority. M/S/P: Williams/Dunn, move to request information from the City Attorney regarding City Council majority votes vs. Super majority votes, Vote: 7-0, motion passed, unanimously. Dunn is concerned about the 20% bonus in housing for the PUD’s. She feels that is a very high number when you are talking about housing. Wensman stated that it is a City ordinance and something the City chose to include to try to get a higher quality development. City Council Updates – September 6, 2016 Meeting i) Royal Golf Course at Lake Elmo Concept PUD Plan – passed. ii) OP Ordinance – tabled. iii) Boulder Ponds LLC – Zoning Map Amendment/PUD Amendment – Ordinance 08-149 – tabled. Staff Updates 1. Upcoming Meetings a. September 26, 2016 b. October 10, 2016 7 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9-12-16 Commission Concerns Kreimer stated that he has noticed that the Asian beetles are back again this year with a vengeance. He is wondering if when the landscape plans are reviewed, we should be avoiding certain types of trees that are affected. Wensman stated that he will do some research on the topic. Kreimer is also wondering if the met council will let us go to 1.7 units per acre for Tartan Park. Wensman stated that Met Council will allow Tartan Park to go lower, but it might affect density somewhere else. Williams stated that he heard that all they care about is the overall average of the sewered area of the City. Meeting adjourned at 9:12 pm Respectfully submitted, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant